Sparrow
Veteran
Art, a slippery idea
“Art” we all know it when we see it but it’s a slippery word. The modern word’s origins stem from artisan, from the Latin root artis, via the Italian artigiano, it describes someone who becomes skilled through practise or study. In reality it was more common to use in the more precise manner such as Master, Journeyman or Apprentice, rarther than atrisan and it described anything from potter to doctor all through the middle ages in the medieval guild systems that encompassed the artisan classes. It persisted well into the 18th century, even today people still get an MA for skills or study that have nothing to do with the modern concept of Art.
Art, the word itself, is a relatively new 18th century word. At that time Romanticism started to use the term to elevate what they did, their “Art” to a higher plane than the “Craft” all that stuff the industrial revolution was spewing out. So the word Art was adopted as an elitist bit of jargon to denigrate the common Craft of the artisan-craftsman and factory, simply a conceit to portray the work of the Romantics as more valuable than that of the hoi-polloi.
Well it worked, and the term stuck, it was adopted by the elite to describe exclusively what they did, to the exclusion of everybody else, to the point where by the last quarter of the 19th century an artist’s commercial success was more or less dependant on the whim of the Royal Academy and the opinion of John Ruskin proclaiming ones work to be Art
At that time it was that Gothic, Pre-Raphaelite and Arts and Craft stuff that dominated Victorian culture and was, even by then, swimming valiantly against the tide of rationalist, materialist and positivist movements and probably a few isms I’ve forgotten. Anyway it was well past the time for a bit more art elitism and so Fine Art was born to draw the line between these two movements, or at least provide a pointed stick to fend off modernism for a few more years.
I can’t remember who actualy coined the phrase and I’m definitely not re-reading Ruskin and Morris to find out who got it out first, but it dates back to that spat between the Victorian establishment and the Modernists, an affection akin to todays' Miss Piggy’s Artiest
Since then of course the term “Fine Art” has been used almost exclusively in a commercial context, to add worth or value to something one is selling, and like any lie told often enough it has eventually become the truth. Today in an ultimate act of irony, Ruskin College Oxford advertises a “Fine Arts Course” I do hope the old bugger is spinning in his grave.
“Art” we all know it when we see it but it’s a slippery word. The modern word’s origins stem from artisan, from the Latin root artis, via the Italian artigiano, it describes someone who becomes skilled through practise or study. In reality it was more common to use in the more precise manner such as Master, Journeyman or Apprentice, rarther than atrisan and it described anything from potter to doctor all through the middle ages in the medieval guild systems that encompassed the artisan classes. It persisted well into the 18th century, even today people still get an MA for skills or study that have nothing to do with the modern concept of Art.
Art, the word itself, is a relatively new 18th century word. At that time Romanticism started to use the term to elevate what they did, their “Art” to a higher plane than the “Craft” all that stuff the industrial revolution was spewing out. So the word Art was adopted as an elitist bit of jargon to denigrate the common Craft of the artisan-craftsman and factory, simply a conceit to portray the work of the Romantics as more valuable than that of the hoi-polloi.
Well it worked, and the term stuck, it was adopted by the elite to describe exclusively what they did, to the exclusion of everybody else, to the point where by the last quarter of the 19th century an artist’s commercial success was more or less dependant on the whim of the Royal Academy and the opinion of John Ruskin proclaiming ones work to be Art
At that time it was that Gothic, Pre-Raphaelite and Arts and Craft stuff that dominated Victorian culture and was, even by then, swimming valiantly against the tide of rationalist, materialist and positivist movements and probably a few isms I’ve forgotten. Anyway it was well past the time for a bit more art elitism and so Fine Art was born to draw the line between these two movements, or at least provide a pointed stick to fend off modernism for a few more years.
I can’t remember who actualy coined the phrase and I’m definitely not re-reading Ruskin and Morris to find out who got it out first, but it dates back to that spat between the Victorian establishment and the Modernists, an affection akin to todays' Miss Piggy’s Artiest
Since then of course the term “Fine Art” has been used almost exclusively in a commercial context, to add worth or value to something one is selling, and like any lie told often enough it has eventually become the truth. Today in an ultimate act of irony, Ruskin College Oxford advertises a “Fine Arts Course” I do hope the old bugger is spinning in his grave.
Jamie123
Veteran
Well, firstly I'd pick 'ars' as the latin root. 'Artis' is indeed also a latin word, both as a synonym for 'ars' and also as its genitive but I think the root is still 'ars'. Also why do you say 'via the Italian artigiano'? The word didn't come into the english language via Italian. You might aswell say 'via the French artisan'.
Ok, so your post starts off with a bit of pretentious and sloppy etymology but that's ok. What bothers me more is the heavily biased misrepresentation of history in which you present art as a purely 'elitist' concept, completely disregarding the development of a philosophical aesthetics in the 18th century with authors such as Kant or Schiller etc.
Ok, so your post starts off with a bit of pretentious and sloppy etymology but that's ok. What bothers me more is the heavily biased misrepresentation of history in which you present art as a purely 'elitist' concept, completely disregarding the development of a philosophical aesthetics in the 18th century with authors such as Kant or Schiller etc.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
....and I remember a marathon thread - in a similar vein ( around Christmas if memory serves ) - obviously never got it all off his chest!
Finder
Veteran
Danto states "art" can only be defined in the context of a specific "artworld." Or in other words, art is want people think it is.
Jamie123
Veteran
You're referring to his essay "The Artworld" (1964) which lead other philosophers, especially George Dickie, to develop the 'Institutional theory' of art. Danto himself renounced this position in "The Trasfiguration of the Commonplace" (1981) where he develops the concept of 'artistic identification' as the defining property of art works. I'm not sure what his position is today.
The problem with the Institutional Theory of art is it's circularity because it boils down to "Something is a work of art if the artworld regards it as art". But since the artworld cannot be defined without referring to art the whole thing becomes circular. Dickie aknowledges that his Institutional Theory is circular but he says it's an informative circle, not a vicious one. I can't argue with that.
Sparrow
Veteran
I have the distinction of being the worst student that particulate chap had ever had, so I can only apologise for my grammatical shortcomings, I was unsure anyway.
However I would stand by the Italian bit, based the Renaissance roots of western art in general, and the Romantics self image of being beyond classicism in particular, French seems unlikely root given the revolution and enlightenment were the antithesis of Romanticism
I think that's the point I'm making, turning the Master Painter of the Renaissance in to the Artist of Industrial revolution succeeded in making it "a purely 'elitist' concept" it shifted emphasis from a skill learned to a creative gift and allowed one group to control who was considered to have that gift
Jamie123
Veteran
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say with the reference to Italian. Do you mean to say that the English word art comes from Italian? If so then it's just wrong.
A little quick Google research shows that the Middle English term 'art' comes from the Old French term 'art' (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art#Etymology_1). Let's assume for a moment that this is accurate.
Also, you seem to say that the actual word 'art' was integrated into the English language in the 18th century which is totally wrong. As shown above, this word can already be found in Middle English.
What you seem to mean is 'Fine Arts' which is indeed a concept that emerged in the 18th and 19th century. And it is only by emphasizing the creative act instead of the skill learned that it is even possible to subsume different practices such as painting, sculpturing and music in the same category.
Finder
Veteran
I have no idea what his position is today either. I read "The End of Art" and I am not sure knows his position as he tied himself into a paradox of what he thought he believed in--he seemed to state any style/school is game, but then said an artist working today in the style of Rembrant was not a valid form. He then acknowledged that quality was important and promptly dropped it. But then Danto's relationship to art is what you would expect from a philosopher--all head, no heart.
But he did clarify one thing; no one knows what art is.
Sparrow
Veteran
http://www.myetymology.com/english/artist.html
i should have checked artist is via Italian, art isn't sorry
as for the rest I contend that art and artist came into common usage at the end of the 18c displacing the guild titles that had been used to that time, and it was as a as a direct affectation of Romanticism and to imply it's superiority.
I believe the same the be true when "fine" was added at the end of the 19c, just another elite pointing out it's superior status.
Jamie123
Veteran
I'm not sure he's all head, no heart. He also worked as an art critic for quite some time and I'm sure there was more heart in that. But if someone writes a philosophical essay I'd prefer them to keep it 'all head'
I did read The End of Art a while back but don't remember much of it at the moment.
Which reminds me that I still have a paper to write on Danto vs. Dickie
As for no one knowing what art is, I think the problem is that everyone knows what art is but no one knows what art is
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
"I had the poor experiences of camera clubs too, a few loudmouths with expensive gear, intent on imposing their imperfect understanding of art and aesthetics on the rest of the membership, I attended twice, and haven't bothered since."Maybe it's time to re-apply for membership!
Chris101
summicronia
It is difficult to talk (or write) much about art without becoming strained and bogged down. The semantic and semiotic nature of the discourse requires too much explanation or previous agreement to go anywhere fast.
However when doing art, it is as simple as lines on paper. Slippery as an idea, but rock solid once made physical.
However when doing art, it is as simple as lines on paper. Slippery as an idea, but rock solid once made physical.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Has anyone mentioned Tolstoy yet? He had a workable explanation of "what art is:"
http://denisdutton.com/tolstoy.htm
http://denisdutton.com/tolstoy.htm
charjohncarter
Veteran
art: a word and a nebulous one.
Is this art?:
Or is this art:
well, we will have to wait for 300 years.
Both corny, a Mexican ceramics display and a crying grandchild.
Is this art?:
Or is this art:
well, we will have to wait for 300 years.
Both corny, a Mexican ceramics display and a crying grandchild.
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
You are saying my "experience" is contained in the work and I can transfer that experience to the audience. Well my experience talking to people who have viewed my work does not reflect that idea. People come to very different views than the ones I have.
I think an example of that was an article I read about a New York writers critique of an Ansel Adams exhibit of the work he had done in Alaska. The reviewer was awed by the barren, harsh, and threatening environment of the north. The person who was writing about this reaction was stunned, as a person who travels in the wilderness, his reaction was of a bountiful and beautiful landscape. We, of course, can only speculate on what Adams intended or experienced.
Tolstoy has a nice idea, but in practice it falls short.
Thebes
Member
I would argue that neither of those images are art. You describe one as "a crying grandchild" which is what was in front of the camera, and this does not seem to be a title for the Jpg file as a work of art. Do you work in the Jpg? Perhaps the Jpg is only a reproduction of the art, if it were art and the original RAW type file is the actual art? Perhaps its a scanned neg and the photographic negative is the work of art, or maybe a scanned negative was used to represent a print that is the work of art.
Where I am coming from is that the thing itself is art, if it is art at all. If a person creates a specific thing with the intent that it be considered, itself, as a work of art- and if the viewer (who might be a very tiny subset of the populace, eg the art world) perceives that the thing created is a work of art--- then it is art.
I think it becomes important to call a work of art what it really is. If, for example, the RAW file is a work of art then it might be titled "Crying Grandchild, Jpg render of Camera Raw, 2010" or if the print is then "Crying Grandchild, Pigment Ink Print 2010" or whatever. This is important because we need know what it is that we are considering as the actual work of art, "the thing itself"- if we don't know what the thing is then perhaps its impossible to discuss why it was created, what it represents, etc. For example "Crying Grandchild. RAW Digital Capture 2010" might be the actual work of art and this Jpg only akin to a card for your next show featuring an interactive display of manipulatable RAW images... perhaps that changes how I would discuss it, maybe the tears are clearer in the original and this print, like a calendar reproducing an Ansel Adams photo, is only an inferior copy. Maybe with digital it becomes meaningful if I (the viewer) have control of sliders on the RAW image that make the subject seem different and alter the initial impressions of the next viewer and how does that change the discussion?
Since I don't quite know what the thing is I am discussing, I can't truly say if it is art. I presume I am discussing the crying grandchild which was in front of your camera, if that is that case I don't consider it art. Hang a print of it in a show, titled "Crying Grandchild, Ilfochrome Lambda Print from RAW Capture" and I would consider it art and might discuss whether the unfixed potentials of that RAW file act as an allegory for the uncertainties of a child's future.
Where I am coming from is that the thing itself is art, if it is art at all. If a person creates a specific thing with the intent that it be considered, itself, as a work of art- and if the viewer (who might be a very tiny subset of the populace, eg the art world) perceives that the thing created is a work of art--- then it is art.
I think it becomes important to call a work of art what it really is. If, for example, the RAW file is a work of art then it might be titled "Crying Grandchild, Jpg render of Camera Raw, 2010" or if the print is then "Crying Grandchild, Pigment Ink Print 2010" or whatever. This is important because we need know what it is that we are considering as the actual work of art, "the thing itself"- if we don't know what the thing is then perhaps its impossible to discuss why it was created, what it represents, etc. For example "Crying Grandchild. RAW Digital Capture 2010" might be the actual work of art and this Jpg only akin to a card for your next show featuring an interactive display of manipulatable RAW images... perhaps that changes how I would discuss it, maybe the tears are clearer in the original and this print, like a calendar reproducing an Ansel Adams photo, is only an inferior copy. Maybe with digital it becomes meaningful if I (the viewer) have control of sliders on the RAW image that make the subject seem different and alter the initial impressions of the next viewer and how does that change the discussion?
Since I don't quite know what the thing is I am discussing, I can't truly say if it is art. I presume I am discussing the crying grandchild which was in front of your camera, if that is that case I don't consider it art. Hang a print of it in a show, titled "Crying Grandchild, Ilfochrome Lambda Print from RAW Capture" and I would consider it art and might discuss whether the unfixed potentials of that RAW file act as an allegory for the uncertainties of a child's future.
Finder
Veteran
Interesting idea. So a music score or a script of a play is art, but the various performances are not?
charjohncarter
Veteran
That guy wrote books that nobody could finish, he had a horrible relationship with his wife and children (on personal, artistic and ethical values), and you say he falls short. Well, I completely agree.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Both were film and copied with a DSLR in RAW that was then converted to jpeg. But that does not make them art, they are crap, just like alot of art these days . I agree, that I do like to know the medium when I see junk that is hung on walls.
Thebes
Member
The score or script might well be intended as a work of art. That is how we discuss, for example, Shakespeare- obviously we have no thing to discuss with respect to his productions. I would say that the performances are artistic performances within the performing arts... these are performances and to discuss them we must witness them happen which is not analogous to a work of art, which exists as a fixed object.